"The IARC says you can enjoy your yoga class, but don’t breathe air (class 1 carcinogen), sit near a sun-filled window (class 1), apply aloe vera (class 2B) if you get a sunburn, drink wine or coffee (class 1 and class 2B), or eat grilled food (class 2A). And if you are a hairdresser or do shift work (both class 2A), you should seek a new career."Worth a snooty chortle, I suppose, if you like your humour ignorant and facetious. Boring bullshit at best (air pollution is classified as a carcinogen, not air): at worst, maliciously misleading.
Whether or not meat itself is carcinogenic, the meat industries themselves have certainly metastasised into malignant tumours within public health discourse.
Several professionals have come out against this research: some likely do not understand the research fully and are rightly skeptical; some are likely just nitwits who knee-jerk whenever anything about their personal choices is criticised. However, the sinister core of the criticism comes from professionals who purport to be dispassionate and expert, but who are paid by meat industry lobby groups.
" 'What we do know is that avoiding red meat in the diet is not a protective strategy against cancer,' said Robert Pickard, a member of the Meat Advisory Panel"The Meat Advisory Panel claims to provide "independent and objective information about red meat and its role as part of a healthy, balanced diet."
This is an odd group for professors and doctors to belong to, unless they are being paid for it. At the bottom of the website of the Meat Advisory Panel, a subtle statement declares that the group is "... supported by an unrestricted educational grant from EBLEX and BPEX."
An unrestricted grant sounds lucrative and reminiscent of the 'educational grants' that cigarette companies were pouring into the coffers of doctors and scientists in days gone by: "90% of doctors say Camels are less irritating on the throat".
The acronyms EBLEX and BPEX stand for lobby groups that are part of an 'Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board' whose aims include "...adding value to the English meat industry."
In other words, people whose explicit financial interest lies with the nurturing of the English meat industry are arguing against a report of the World Health Organisation that shows negative health effects of meat.
To get an idea of what is meant by "independent and objective information", have a look at the website of BPEX: http://pork.ahdb.org.uk. The conflict of interests is self-evident.
